PS501 Foundations of Professional Psychology 550 words MINIMUM, (Graduate Level) Serious Inquires only!!!!!!!

Creativity Through Applying Ideas From Fields Other Than One’s Own: Transferring Knowledge From Social Psychology to Industrial/Organizational Psychology *

Abstract Subfields of psychology can be arguably characterized as islands of unconnected knowledge. The underlying theme of this paper is that these subfields have much to gain by looking at and studying each other’s respective literature. This paper explains how the field of industrial/organiza- tional (I/O) psychology has benefited from theory and research in social psychology, and suggests ways it can ben- efit even more so. Specifically, moral development, the group-serving bias, as well as inducing feelings of hypocrisy so as to foster subsequent behaviour change are discussed. Their potential for leading to further insight into existing problems, refining existing theories, and for raising new questions in I/O psychology is described.

Psychology is a behavioural science whose literature has grown rapidly. However, psychology has often failed to transfer knowledge across its subfields. Scientists and practitioners within the subfields fre- quently appear ignorant of ways they can benefit from cross-subfield research. These subfields, whether bio- logical, clinical, educational, social, or industrial, con- tain interdependent ideas that should be shared in order to advance psychology for all.

Since the authors are researchers of organizational behaviour, this paper provides insights as to how trans- ferring knowledge from social psychology has already enriched the science and practice of I/O psychology. In addition, new ideas as to how I/O psychology can benefit from social psychology are explored.

Benefits of Reading Literature Other than One’s Own The benefits of researching literature other than one’s

own are at least four-fold. First, sharing concepts among psychology’s subfields allows researchers to extend their work to other areas (i.e., generalization). Second, it enables them to theorize and contextualize their research so as to connect their findings within larger conversations. Research designs often yield rela- tively sterile pieces of data that contribute little to knowledge and understanding when they are confined to narrow disciplines, or kept within the borders of a specific field (e.g., Locker, 1994; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2001). Third, it helps researchers to be constructively critical of both the fields from which they draw information and of that in which they work. It can lead to proposals for using alternative method- ologies in a particular program of research. Fourth, it enables researchers to raise questions not previously considered. Sharing knowledge across subfields may even lead researchers who investigate the same phe- nomenon, but who are in different areas of psycholo- gy, and hence have different perspectives and instru- ments, to interact with one another in ways that facili- tate both knowledge creation and knowledge applica- tion.

History I/O researchers have already benefited from theories and concepts (e.g., causal attribution, judgment heuristics, impression management, power and com- pliance, and leadership) developed within the field of social psychology to predict, explain, and influence the behaviour of individuals in organizational settings. I/O researchers looked at the social psychological liter- ature because social psychological processes influence, to a great extent, an individual’s behaviour in organi- zations. I/O researchers are pragmatic social scientists who often have to deal with concrete issues in real- world settings. Relative to other subfields, the bridge between I/O and social psychology has always been quite strong. These two subfields of psychology have systematically examined similar ideas albeit in differ- ent contexts, and in doing so, have advanced knowl- edge by showing that conclusions from within these two subfields have external validity.

The paper proceeds as follows. First, we provide two examples, causal attribution and impression manage- ment, to illustrate how I/O researchers have benefited

GERARD H. SEIJTS BRANDON W. LATHAM

University of Western Ontario

* Accepted by the previous Editor, Dr. Vic Catano./Accepté par le Rédacteur en chef précédent, Vic Catano.

Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 44:3 2003

Creativity Through Applying Ideas From Fields Other Than One’s Own 233

from concepts identified and developed in social psy- chology. Second, we suggest additional avenues for exploration, namely, the role of moral development, the group-serving bias, and the effect of inducing feel- ings of hypocrisy on subsequent behaviour change. These topics are explored within an organizational environment to illustrate how theories and empirical research in social psychology can inform I/O researchers. Other topics in social psychology could easily be included, but are deleted for reasons of jour- nal space. Third, we address barriers that exist in shar- ing theories and concepts among the subfields of psy- chology, and discuss strategies for the transfer of knowledge.

Causal Attribution The study of attribution processes began with the sem- inal work of Heider (1946, 1958). The implicit assumption is that people function as naïve scientists (e.g., Heider, 1958; Jones & Davis 1965). That is, most individuals strive to hold “correct” opinions and beliefs. In doing so, they attempt to discover factors that give rise to or explain an outcome, especially those that are unexpected or aversive.

Kelley, a social psychologist, developed the co-varia- tion model (e.g., Kelley, 1972). This model explains how individuals process information to make causal attributions for the behaviour of self and others. People look for three sources of data to explain the reason(s) individuals engage in a particular behaviour or perform at a certain level. (1) The consistency of the actor’s action (e.g., Does the person engage in the behaviour on a regular and consistent basis?). (2) The level of consensus (e.g., Do other people engage in the same behaviour, or is it unique to the person?). (3) The distinctiveness of the action (e.g., Does the person engage in the behaviour on several occasions, or is it distinctive to one situation?). These three fac- tors in concert are used to determine internal or external explanations for the person’s behaviour. Such explanations or attributions, in turn, influence the observer’s perceptions and future behaviour.

Mitchell, who was trained as a graduate student in social psychology, was among the first I/O researchers to use attribution processes to predict and explain leadership and performance appraisal behaviour. In a series of studies, he investigated factors that influence a nursing supervisor’s causal attribution of behaviour when confronted with incidents of poor work perfor- mance on the part of an employee.

He found that the supervisors attributed poor per- formance more to internal than external factors, regardless of the surrounding circumstances (e.g., the extent to which peers made similar errors) (e.g.,

Mitchell & Kalb, 1981; Mitchell & Wood, 1980). The bias toward internal attributions for poor work perfor- mance increased when the work history of an employ- ee was poor. The supervisors’ behaviours chosen as responses to the poor performance were related in a predictable manner to their attributions. That is, the more internal the attribution, the more disciplinary action was recommended versus a training program that would benefit the entire staff. Thus, consistent with research in social psychology, Mitchell found that individuals attempt to discover the root cause of inap- propriate work behaviour, and that the information gathered provides guidelines for individuals’ subse- quent behaviour. Consistent with the co-variation model, he found consistency, consensus, and distinc- tiveness to be relevant dimensions on which supervi- sors base attributions for job performance.

Researchers have also investigated the role of attri- butions in areas other than performance appraisal, including, but not limited to, helping behaviour in teams (e.g., LePine & Van Dyne, 2001), sexual harass- ment (e.g., O’Leary-Kelly, Paetzold, & Griffin, 2000), and burnout and exhaustion (e.g., Moore, 2000). They found that incorporating causal attribution theo- ries in their research improved the constructs’ con- ceptualization (e.g., the antecedents and conse- quences).

In conclusion, the concept of causal attribution, which had its origin in social psychology, has advanced theory development and research in I/O psychology. The application of attribution theories to content domains such as performance appraisal and leader- ship, among others, has helped I/O researchers to gain insight as to how employees, supervisors, and managers use information to arrive at causal explana- tions for work-related events. In doing so, insight from attribution theories have helped to advance our knowledge and, in addition, refine our theories in areas including, but not limited to, per formance appraisal and leadership.

Impression Management People engage in modification of presentation of the self in order to increase their power in relationships and maximize profitable outcomes (e.g., Schlenker, 1985; Schlenker, Pontari, Tesser, & Felson, 2000). For example, a person may embellish ongoing behaviour if she believes that she will gain valued tangible or intangible outcomes through fostering a particular impression in others. In addition, impression manage- ment behaviours affect the images presented to the self. This is because, as Fiske and Taylor (1991) argued, “… the self is one’s own best and most impor- tant audience” (p. 233).

234 Seijts and Latham

Impression management research in social psychol- ogy has influenced I/O research in goal setting, feed- back seeking behaviour, and the selection interview. With regard to goal setting, Huber, Latham, and Locke (1989) showed that employees can create a pos- itive impression with their supervisors when they engage in a number of goal-setting strategies, such as taking the initiative to set goals, choosing challenging goals, showing commitment to goals through persis- tence and problem resolution, and succeeding in attaining or approaching the goal. In contrast, super- visors can create a favourable impression with employ- ees through such behaviours as providing a rationale for the goal, serving as a role model by setting and attaining challenging goals, and allowing employees to develop their own strategies to attain an assigned goal. Other goal-setting researchers have obtained similar findings (e.g., Dossett & Greenberg, 1981).

Seijts, Meertens, and Kok (1997) found that the impression management motive is an antecedent of goal commitment. Making a public commitment to a goal increases goal commitment over that of assigning a goal in private. Failure to attain the goal could hurt one’s private and public image as observers come to question the person’s abilities. As a result, people per- sist in goal-directed behaviour.

The impressions that supervisors have of employees are usually important because supervisors control access to rewards such as compensation, promotion, and training opportunities. Feedback seeking can affect a super visor’s impression of an employee. Ashford and Northcraft (1992) found that employees tend to prefer nonsocial sources of feedback because the act of asking for feedback from one’s peers and/or supervisors may give observers the impression that the person is insecure about his job performance, or worse, incompetent. This finding suggests that feedback seekers are faced with a conflict between their need to obtain useful information to improve job per formance, and the need to present a favourable image to other members of the organiza- tion. The impression management motive thus adds complexities to the feedback seeking process.

A third area in which I/O researchers have begun to incorporate the concept of impression manage- ment is that of selection inter views. Among the impression management tactics that are commonly used in selection interviews are ingratiation, self-pro- motion, assertiveness, excuses, and information filter- ing (e.g., Fletcher, 1989). Researchers have investigat- ed factors that affect the use of such impression man- agement tactics, as well as the effect of these tactics on actual inter view outcomes. In a campus setting, Stevens and Kristof (1995) found that applicants

relied on assertive tactics such as explaining how obstacles were overcome to a greater extent than defensive tactics such as excuses or justifications. These assertive impression management tactics, in turn, had a positive effect on interviewers’ ratings of the applicants, and subsequent site-visit invitations.

Future Benefits In the above examples, there is a solid body of litera- ture in social psychology suggesting straightforward applications to I/O psychology. In the next section, we discuss potential benefits from areas in social psychol- ogy where there are as yet little or no extant applica- tions to I/O psychology. Three examples are discussed, namely, moral development, the group-serving bias, as well as hypocrisy and subsequent behaviour change. None of these areas have found their way into main- stream I/O journals. Nevertheless, these areas have the potential to lead to further insight into old prob- lems, refinement of existing theories, and raise new questions for I/O research and practice. These areas were selected because they illustrate subject matter of interest to I/O psychologists that are not well illustrat- ed by existing I/O theory or research.

Moral Development Individuals differ in their level of value development, as well as in their perceptions of the appropriate means to achieve valued ends or personal goals. For example, those who have progressed to a mature level of value development possess a different set of value priorities than individuals who are at less mature levels.

A model that has attracted widespread attention in the literature is that of Kohlberg’s (1976, 1984) moral reasoning. Kohlberg, a developmental psychologist, identified three levels of value development. First, at the preconventional level, values and moral reasoning are based on personal needs or wants, as well as on the consequences of an act in obtaining a reward or avoid- ing punishment. Second, at the conventional level, reasoning is based on conforming to, and upholding, the conventions and expectations of others. Third, at the postconventional level, right versus wrong and good versus bad are judged on the basis of principles that have been internalized by the individual. Through experience, learning from others, and per- spective-taking, the individual develops a set of core values. These core values, in turn, are the basis for decision-making and interaction with others. These three levels appear in a fixed order of succession; pass- ing each level is required for the formation of the fol- lowing one. The postconventional stage represents the highest or most mature level of value development.

Creativity Through Applying Ideas From Fields Other Than One’s Own 235

Studies in social psychology have linked value development to a number of dependent variables, including antisocial acts such as disobedience, cheat- ing, and aggression as well as moral domains such as capital punishment and abortion. In a scenario exper- iment, Berkowitz, Mueller, Schnell, and Padberg (1986) found that high school and college students who exhibited higher levels of moral reasoning responded stronger to an aggressor’s intentions vis-à- vis the consequences for the victim when rating the aggressiveness of the act. The level of an individual’s moral development has also been associated with acts such as drug and alcohol abuse (e.g., Berkowitz, Guerra, & Nucci, 1991).

What might the relevance of these findings be for I/O researchers and organizations? Value develop- ment and moral reasoning are research avenues for I/O psychologists who study ethics in the workplace as well as counterproductive behaviour. Employees can engage in a wide spectrum of counterproductive, dis- ruptive, antisocial, and deviant behaviours. Examples include manipulation of the organization’s balance sheet, insider trading, faking tests, theft, sabotage, harassment, cheating, violence, not to mention avoid- able tardiness and absenteeism. Kohlberg’s model and Berkowitz’s findings might also have implications for work-related domains such as conflict resolution, deci- sion-making, and pro-social or organizational citizen- ship behaviour.

How can organizations minimize, if not prevent, counterproductive behaviours and deception in the workplace? Should moral development be included in efforts to predict and prevent such behaviours? Research questions might include the following. (1) Is moral development a predictor of ethical workplace behaviour, counterproductive workplace behaviour, or both? (2) Should moral development be a selection criterion, and if so, under what conditions? (3) How can I/O psychologists design instruments that mea- sure moral development in the workplace, and that are defensible in the courtroom? (4) Can organiza- tions foster an individual’s moral development? What contextual variables affect moral development?

Initiating a research program to answer such ques- tions might a) help I/O psychologists discover motives behind counterproductive behaviours, hence build more “complete” models in psychology, and b) pro- vide organizations with suggestions of how to best avoid and manage counterproductive behaviour in the workplace.

Vecchio (1981) provided preliminary evidence of the benefit of research on moral reasoning for I/O psychology. He used Kohlberg’s stages of value devel- opment to reconcile the differential predictions gen-

erated by Adams’ (1965) equity theory and Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory for the condition of over- payment on a piece-rate compensation scheme. Undergraduate students were hired to interview fel- low students on their opinions on controversial cam- pus-life issues. Participants were assigned to either the equitable payment condition or the overpayment con- dition. The rate of conducting interviews and the aver- age number of words recorded per interview were the dependent variables. The more morally mature partic- ipants were the most differentially affected by the occurrence of inequity in the simulated work setting. Vecchio’s study thus illustrates that I/O psychologists can gain by looking at the knowledge developed in other subfields of psychology.

Group-Serving Bias The group-serving bias refers to the disparaging expla- nations that members of a dominant group make for the successes and failures of members of an “out- group” relative to members of their “ingroup” (e.g., Dion & Dion, 2001; Schruijer, Blanz, Mummendey, & Tedeschi, 1994). For example, the failure of an out- group member is often seen as reflecting an internal disposition (e.g., laziness, or low intellectual ability) to a greater extent than the same failing of an ingroup member. Moreover, members of the ingroup tend to view successes of an outgroup member as an excep- tional case, or due to luck or a special advantage (e.g., affirmative action policies). Achievements of outgroup members, therefore, are discounted relative to the same success that a member from the ingroup attained. In conclusion, social psychologists have found that group members tend to offer more favourable explanations for the actions of ingroup members than for those of outgroup members. Also, their research has shown that prejudiced individuals in particular tend to offer disparaging explanations for the achievements of outgroup members (e.g., Hewstone & Ward, 1985; Pettigrew, 1979).

Social psychologists Dion and Dion (2001) exam- ined the group-serving bias involving Blacks, Chinese, Black Jamaicans, and White Anglo-Canadians, crossed with age and gender. In addition, the moderating influence of social dominance orientation (SDO), reflecting a belief in the rightness of group hierar- chies and personal acceptance of intergroup inequali- ties, was investigated. They found that, across domains such as athletic and academic performance, SDO cor- related significantly with discounting attributions. Those participants (all White students) with high SDO tended to view the achievements of the disadvantaged groups as reflecting luck, an exceptional case, or the result of a special advantage. In addition, a main

236 Seijts and Latham

effect for ethnic background was obtained. The results indicated greater discounting for Black than for Chinese performers.

These findings have implications for I/O research in the areas of selection, performance appraisal, pro- motion, and employee access to training programs. For example, does the group-serving bias help to explain the different interviewer reactions to candi- dates from various racial-ethnic backgrounds in selec- tion interviews? Do racial minorities, women, and peo- ple with disabilities have prior work-related achieve- ments seen in a positive or negative light? Looking at studies on the group-serving bias, in addition to stud- ies in areas such as organizational justice and theories of rating, might help I/O psychologists to better understand the behaviour of individuals conducting selection interviews.

The results might also have implications for mini- mizing workplace aggression and harassment. For example, Aquino (2000) defined victimization as “the individual’s self-perception of having been exposed, either momentarily or repeatedly, to aggressive actions emanating from one or more other persons” (p. 172). This definition implies that there could be a relation- ship between the group-serving bias and victimization in that individuals perceive the behavioural acts (e.g., issuing threats) of outgroup members as more aggres- sive than the same acts of ingroup members. It might also be that individuals ascribe a higher likelihood to outgroup victims of aggression to retaliate than ingroup victims of the same act of regression. Such perceptions could lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. Thus, based on the group-serving bias research, it would appear that attributional processes at the group level could help researchers discover ways to explain, predict, and influence deviant behaviour in the work- place.

The group-serving bias might also inform I/O research on group-efficacy, defined as “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 477). Gist and Mitchell (1992) argued that perceptions of efficacy are, in part, the result of an in-depth attribu- tional process. However, the group-serving bias can be expected to hinder people’s attempts to understand the “true” causes of good or poor performance. As a result, the shared perceptions of a group’s efficacy will be inaccurate. This could be problematic, in particu- lar when efficacy beliefs are unduly high because an inflated sense of efficacy could result in overconfi- dence and, in the long run, poor performance.

Inducing Feelings of Hypocrisy and Dissonance Reduction Thus far, this paper has focused primarily on ways I/O researchers might benefit from theory and research in social psychology. I/O practitioners too may be able to apply findings from social psychology directly to prac- tice. An example is Aronson’s work on hypocrisy and behavioural change.

Aronson and his colleagues (e.g., Aronson, 1999; Aronson, Fried, & Stone, 1991; Dickerson, Thibodeau, Aronson, & Miller, 1992) developed a technique to induce feelings of hypocrisy, which is a form of cogni- tive dissonance. Feelings of hypocrisy, in turn, can lead to a relatively permanent change in behaviour.

In brief, individuals are asked to encourage (e.g., through writing a persuasive speech for an audience) other people to perform worthwhile behaviours (e.g., using condoms to prevent AIDS). Then, these individ- uals are reminded (e.g., through self-generated feed- back such as completing a questionnaire) that, on occasion, their own behaviour has not been consistent with what they have advocated. As a result, these indi- viduals come to realize that they do not “practice what they preach.” This, in turn, generates feelings of hypocrisy. For most individuals, behaving hypocritical- ly is inconsistent with their self-concept of integrity. Aronson’s program of research has shown that to fos- ter the highest motivation to act in accordance with one’s dominant attitudes, both public commitment to the position one supports as well as mindfulness of one’s occasional failure to act in accordance with that position must be present.

Aronson tested his ideas in field settings. For exam- ple, Stone, Aronson, Crain, Winslow, and Fried (1994) found that sexually active young adults who publicly advocated the importance of practicing safe sex to prevent AIDS, and who were then made mindful of their own past failure to use condoms, bought more condoms, on average, than the participants in the control condition. Similar research was conducted using water conservation (e.g., Dickerson et al., 1992) and recycling (e.g., Fried & Aronson, 1995) as depen- dent variables.

The results that Aronson obtained in bringing about a change in behaviour are both compelling and provocative for practitioners as well as scientists. This intervention technique would appear to be highly applicable in organizational settings.

Managers are often guilty of not practicing what they preach to their superiors, peers, and subordi- nates. Examples include, but are not limited to, adher- ing to fairness principles in performance reviews, allowing input in the goal-setting process, abstaining from alcohol during work time, using uniform stan- dards in job promotion decisions, and so forth.

Creativity Through Applying Ideas From Fields Other Than One’s Own 237

Consistent with the public commitment factor in the hypocrisy paradigm, managers could be asked to discuss, in public, the importance of behaving in a prescribed or advocated manner. Second, managers could be made mindful of their own failures to behave in this prescribed fashion through having small discus- sion groups work together to generate a list of the cir- cumstances that make the advocated behaviour diffi- cult. Through this discussion, managers’ own past transgressions might become salient. This could be the starting point for behavioural change. In addition, the technique might be used as a post-transfer-of-train- ing intervention to ensure behaviour maintenance on the part of trainees. Research has shown that, within work settings, the correlation between learning (e.g., knowledge and attitudes) and behaviour is weak. For example, Alliger and Janek (1989) reported a .13 cor- relation between these two variables, suggesting that while employees know how to behave as well as the rationale for doing so, they do not do so. Inducing cognitive dissonance through Aronson’s methodology might be an effective intervention to strengthen the relationship between cognition and behaviour.

Discussion Social psychologists tend to do laboratory experi- ments involving undergraduate students. This is also true of I/O psychologists. Nevertheless, laboratory findings usually generalize to organizational settings (Locke, 1986). Most social psychologists, as do I/O psychologists, prefer quantitative to qualitative research, and prefer where possible to conduct research in field settings. There are few, if any, philo- sophical underpinnings for refusing to embrace one another’s respective literature. Social psychology, for example, could benefit from I/O research findings regarding the danger of using difference scores as well as the perils of using single items as a dependent measure. Yet, mixing the various subfields, not to mention disciplines, evokes fear and resistance among many scientists (e.g., Hansson, 1999; Locker, 1994; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2001) for at least five rea- sons. First, the entrenched organization of the sub- fields is traditional in psychology; psychologists accept the structure as a given. Second, crossing boundaries requires even more time and effort than research in a traditional defined field (e.g., one has to keep up with the reading in multiple fields, not just one). Third, the likelihood that researchers make conceptual mis- takes when concepts are imported from other fields increases (e.g., taking concepts out of context or mis- application of concepts). Fourth, there is a risk to championing theories that may be subsequently dis- counted in the host field. Fifth, there is often a fear

that research that crosses fields and disciplines will be treated unfavourably. That is, reviewers will rate papers from their own discipline more favourably than mixed-bag papers. However, Steele and Stier (2000) found that papers in the environmental sci- ences that drew information from a diverse set of jour- nals were cited to a greater, not lesser, extent than papers that had smaller or more narrow focused bibli- ographies. Whether this is the case in the discipline of psychology as well is unknown and warrants empirical investigation.

Science and practice is needed to discover ways to combat bias toward crossing boundaries and transfer- ring knowledge in psychology. One potential strategy is for PhD students to be encouraged to write truly comprehensive examinations; their supervisors can encourage them to take courses from other subfields of psychology. This might encourage people to look beyond their narrow subdiscipline, and might lead to an appreciation for other subdisciplines that would last a lifetime.

Arguably more important is the need for a theory of diffusion for not only disseminating results across psychology’s subfields, but empowering or motivating scientists and practitioners to approach their own work in a new way, with new vigour to learn about overlapping subfields, seek to apply findings from other fields to their own, and so forth. Short of that, a framework or conceptual scheme is needed concern- ing desirable connections among subfields. This would enable psychologists to draw on material more selectively to bolster and elaborate upon their research and practice.

The willingness of I/O psychologists to take advan- tage of the social psychology literature reflects well on them and says something about the kind of person drawn to I/O psychology. I/O psychologists are prag- matic social scientists who often have to deal with con- crete issues of applied psychology in real-world set- tings. As such, the social – I/O transfer is an example of a symbiosis between a basic area (viz., social psy- chology) and an applied area (viz., I/O psychology). As psychologists, we should all have a vested interest in giving our science away, of “advancing psychology for all.”

This research was supported by the Richard Ivey School of Business MBA ‘96 Faculty Fellowship. A modified version of this paper was presented as part of the symposium “Bringing down the walls: Creating a boundaryless psy- chology” presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, St. Foy, Quebec, June, 2001.

We thank Kenneth Dion, Gary Latham, John Meyer, and three anonymous reviewers for their comments on an

238 Seijts and Latham

earlier draft of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be

addressed to Gerard H. Seijts, Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 3K7 (E-mail: [email protected]).

Résumé On peut à juste titre décrire les sous-champs de la psy- chologie comme des îles abritant des connaissances qui ne sont pas reliées entre elles. Le thème sous-jacent du présent article se résume ainsi : les sous-champs de la psy- chologie ont beaucoup à gagner de la consultation et de l’étude de la documentation sur laquelle s’appuie chacun d’eux. Dans notre article, nous expliquons en quoi le champ de la psychologie industrielle-organisationnelle (I/O) a tiré profit de la théorie et de la recherche en psy- chologie sociale et nous suggérons des moyens qui lui per- mettraient d’en profiter encore davantage. En particulier, nous discutons du développement moral, du biais cognitif de groupe, ainsi que du développement de sentiments d’hypocrisie de manière à favoriser un futur changement de comportement. Enfin, nous décrivons le potentiel qu’offrent ces concepts pour entraîner de nouvelles façons de comprendre des problèmes existants, pour préciser les théories actuelles et soulever de nouvelles questions dans le champ de la psychologie I/O.

References Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L.

Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 2, 267-299. New York: Academic Press.

Alliger, G. M., & Janek, E. A. (1989). Kirkpatrick’s levels of training criteria: Thirty years later. Personnel Psychology, 42, 331-342.

Aquino, K. (2000). Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization: The effects of hierarchical status and conflict management style. Journal of Management, 26, 171-193.

Aronson, E. (1999). Dissonance, hyprocrisy, and the self- concept. In E. Harmon-Jones & J. Mills (Eds.), Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp. 103-126). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Aronson, E., Fried, C., & Stone, J. (1991). Overcoming denial and increasing the intention to use condoms through the induction of hypocrisy. Public Health Briefs, 81, 1636-1638.

Ashford, S., & Northcraft, G. (1992). Conveying more (or less) than we realize: The role of impression-manage- ment in feedback-seeking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 310-334.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New

York: Freeman. Berkowitz, M., Guerra, N., & Nucci, L. (1991). Sociomoral

development and drug and alcohol abuse. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behav- ior and development (pp. 35-53). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Berkowitz, M., Mueller, C., Schnell, S., & Padberg, M. (1986). Moral reasoning and judgments of aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 885-891.

Dickerson, C. A., Thibodeau, R., Aronson, E., & Miller, D. (1992). Using cognitive dissonance to encourage water conservation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 841- 854.

Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (2001, June). Social dominance orientation and the ultimate attribution error. Paper pre- sented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Society. Toronto, ON.

Dossett, D., & Greenberg, C. (1981). Goal setting and per- formance evaluation: An attributional analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 767-779.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fletcher, C. (1989). Impression management in the selec- tion interview. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 269-281). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fried, C. B., & Aronson, E. (1995). Hypocrisy, misattribu- tion, and dissonance reduction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 925-933.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theo- retical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183-211.

Hansson, B. (1999). Interdisciplinarity: For what purpose? Policy Sciences, 32, 339-343.

Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21, 107-112.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

Hewstone, M., & Ward, C. (1985). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in Southeast Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 614-623.

Huber, V., Latham, G., & Locke, E. (1989). The manage- ment of impressions through goal setting. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 203-217). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to disposi- tions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychol- ogy, 2, 220-266. New York: Academic Press.

Kelley, H. H. (1972). Attribution in social interaction. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 1-26). Morristown, NJ: General

Creativity Through Applying Ideas From Fields Other Than One’s Own 239

Learning Press. Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization, the

cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior (pp. 31-53). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development. San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Peer responses to low performers: An attributional model of helping in the context of groups. Academy of Management Review, 26, 67-84.

Locke, E. A. (1986). Generalizing from laboratory to field set- tings. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Locker, K. (1994). The challenge of interdisciplinary research. Journal of Business Communication, 31, 137-151.

Mitchell, T,. & Kalb, L. (1981). Effects of outcome knowl- edge and outcome valence on supervisor’s evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 604-612.

Mitchell, T., & Wood, R. (1980). Supervisor’s responses to subordinate poor performance: A test of an attribution- al model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 25, 123-138.

Moore, J. E. (2000). Why is this happening? A causal attri- bution approach to work exhaustion consequences. Academy of Management Review, 25, 335-349.

O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Paetzold, R. L., & Griffin, R. W. (2000). Sexual harassment as aggressive behavior: An actor-based perspective. Academy of Management Review, 25, 372-388.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport’s cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 461-479.

Schlenker, B. R. (1985). The self and social life. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schlenker B. R., Pontari, B., Tesser, A., & Felson, R. (2000). The strategic control of information: Impression management and self-presentation in daily life. In A. Tesser & R. B. Felson (Eds.), Psychological per- spectives on self and identity (pp. 199-232). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Schruijer, S., Blanz, M., Mummendey, A., & Tedeschi, J. (1994). The group-serving bias in evaluating and explaining harmful behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 47-53.

Seijts, G. H., Meertens, R. M., & Kok, G. J. (1997). The effects of task importance and publicness on the rela- tionship between goal difficulty and task performance. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 29, 54-62.

Steele, T. W., & Stier, J. C. (2000). The impact of interdisci- plinary research in the environmental sciences: A forestry case study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 476-484.

Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Unified psy- chology. American Psychologist, 56, 1069-1079.

Stevens, C., & Kristof, A. (1995). Making the right impres- sion: A field study of applicant impression management during job interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 587-606.

Stone, J., Aronson, E., Crain, A. L., Winslow, M. P., & Fried, C. B. (1994). Inducing hypocrisy as a means of encouraging young adults to use condoms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 116-128.

Vecchio, R. P. (1981). An individual-differences interpreta- tion of the conflicting predictions generated by equity theory and expectancy theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 470-481.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.